These days we have Homer Simpson and the King of queens, et al.
Excuse me, but Mr. Simpson is a Nuclear Safety Inspector. They don't just give that job out to anyone. And he's been to space and stuff. They don't just let anyone go to space.
In a statement by Steve Jobs: "Who the fuck is this guy?! Theoretical physics? How about I put my theoretical foot up his ass! Can you differentiate the pixels of that, motherfucker?"
Please note that I am not advocating any violence, theoretical or otherwise against physicists, theoretical or otherwise.
Only the United States and the Soviet Union have ever demonstrated the ability to destroy an orbiting satellite. Of course, if an enemy is willing to expend enough time, money, materiel and other resources, any system can be disrupted, damaged or destroyed.
As with many things, I guess it's a question of hoping someone doesn't do it. And then of course there's:
In spite of the fact that satellites are designed to operate in space, more satellites have failed due to the effects of the environment than any other cause.
I'm in a band and the one thing that really makes it hard to play well, or at least enjoy playing the show, is an unresponsive crowd.
I'm in a crowd, and the one thing that really makes it hard to respond to a band is when they suck.
I'm not the one paid to fix it. I guess we need to work together somehow. But I'm not sure how this is the crowd's fault.
Off the top of my head if you sucked less, I'd respond more. No offense. Same with lectures. Same with product presentations. Same with meetings. Same with anything that you want me to participate in. The leader sets the tone.
My background is that I got an Apple ][+ in 1979. I was 11. Today I'm a professional programmer, and I've worked in lots of different languages. The first things I remember doing "solved a problem":
I modified the PHONE LIST program to say DATE LIST. Like I pawed through the BASIC code and found where it printed it, and changed it to say DATE LIST. And I used it to try and impress a girl (I put her phone number in it). I'm not kidding about this.
I had a paper route. I used VisiCalc to figure out my margin from my paper route. Like I knew how much I paid for my papers, and I knew how much I charged, so I figured out what my margin was.
But the point is that I didn't start with "I want to program", I started with "I'm gonna solve me a problem."
And then I started keying in programs from the BASIC Computer Games and More BASIC Computer Games books. Which is actually how I learned BASIC, because the dialect of BASIC in the books wasn't the same as Applesoft BASIC, so I had to learn how to fix it.
And I just spent a lot of time finding new programs and playing with them.
I wasn't pressured by my dad to program a computer. It was just lying around. I responded to it. If you wanted to do anything cool, you better get to typing some BASIC. So I did.
My daughter is 11 right now. She hangs out on the Neopets website. A large portion of participating in that community is doing stuff in HTML, Javascript and CSS. She makes pages in order to participate in the community, and she understands how the changes in CSS work. Some of her designs are pretty clever. She has taken HTML from other places and modified it to suit her needs. She's showing very programmer-like behaviors.
In my day, I wouldn't consider a BASIC -> Pascal progression. That's if you're going to get a CS degree. Pascal wasn't a practical operating environment on the Apple ][. Professional programming in general was done in 6502 assembler, which I learned when I started making more advanced stuff that I wanted to use personally. In my teens, I started working at a software company part-time after school, and I had to maintain 6502 code, which is where I ultimately thrived.
So anyway, solve a problem that your kid wants to solve, and let the problem dictate the tool. Much as with professional programming. Don't just hunt around looking for tools to learn at the outset. Make the learning evolve naturally from the problem.
As far as the Dell "yet another little PC" announcement, we've been able to hook PCs up to our TV for years. What matters is making it work well in that environment, which no one has done. No, not even Apple, Microsoft or Boxee.
This article points to a bunch of other efforts from the past. This list is most notably missing BEEP which also included the ability to multiplex multiple streams on top of TCP at the application layer.
I hope they're able to synthesize all of the thinking from these protocols into their work, and they bring this into the IETF and W3C for discussion when it's appropriate...
It makes me wonder if there's dark black fiber. Or is it black dark fiber... Either way, it's fiber that you don't know is there, and doesn't transmit any data.
You are aware that "closest" in this context means "faster", aren't you?
Is your point that a host that's connected via T-1 that's a mile away is faster than a host that's connected on an OC-3 3,000 miles away? That is, based on knowing the geographic location of a host, you're saying it's somehow an indication of how fast my download will complete? That's the only thing that matters to me -- when will I have my completed bits. My only point here is that the information given in mirror selection is not enough to pick the "fastest" way to get what I want. It lists the geographical location and that's it.
Probably is too much a power user the one able to install the package "apt-spy" which will build a sources.list for you based on bandwith probes, isn't it?
Yes. Yes it is. If such a list can be generated, then why not just generate it in normal operation or list the mirrors based on the output of that tool? Though I do appreciate the tip, and I will try it. Obviously bandwidth and availability varies on a day by day basis. So taking a snapshot at one point in time seems like it will get stale.
Oh, and please, don't let parent post at +Insigthful when it's plain -Nonsense.
It's a legitimate end-user concern. "Which mirror should I select" should not be a user problem. The user wants his bits as soon as possible, which is a technical problem that has allegedly been solved with apt-spy. If that's the case, we should probably integrate that with the mirror selection process, and then you don't have to put up with all the "Nonsense".
Is it just me or is the fun game of "pick your closest mirror" not very fun at all? Just download the damn thing at best possible speed. I don't care where you get it from.
As if I'm in a position to pick the best site where to download something from. Give me a break. Apologies to the power users who can lick their Ethernet cable and tell which site will have the best download performance and availability.
I've been programming for 30 years or so, and I've been feeling ashamed. I've been feeling like I've done something wrong and that I haven't structured my programs right. That if only I was smart enough I would be able to take advantage of these multicore systems.
But I think I'm feeling better about myself. If I write rational multithreaded programs and use scalable patterns like producer / consumer, then I'll be pretty much ready to go.
And it seems like a lot of this isn't really relevant for desktop applications. I mean, there's some amount of keeping the main event thread moving so that your application is responsive, and you do time consuming operations on separate threads. But the only time I've really used a whole lot of threading is in server apps where you have a whole bunch of incoming connections that you're processing concurrently.
I understand that there is a branch of computer science that surrounds parallel computing, and there are some applications that might benefit from this (image processing being the canonical example). But I think it's another tool in the toolbox. Another way to approach a problem like map / reduce or whatever is in vogue. Some problems will benefit from being solved this way. Some won't. Use the right tool.
And I don't understand why we need to beat the drum for more efficient use of multicore. It's cool, we'll figure out what to do with all these cores. And then we'll put that in our toolbox and use it when appropriate.
Honestly, I don't see how these things would take off if they required rewiring your house just to be able to recharge them.
This is a perfectly valid sentiment, but given the realities of physics right now, I think it's inevitable.
Let's do some quick math. Essentially what we're talking about is the maximum amount of juice you can pump through a "normal plug". So this is 120 volts at a maximum of, let's say, 30 amps. If you plugged your car in, and it was perfectly efficient recharging the batteries, each hour you'd replenish 120 * 30 = 3600 watt hours of energy, or 3.6 kilowatt hours. Consulting the chart of gasoline gallon equivalents, you see that you need about 33.56 killowatt hours to equal one gallon of gasoline. So it's ten hours to get the equivalent of one gallon of gas in your car using a normal plug.
Now, if you up the voltage to 240 volts and the amperage to 70 amps, you get 16.8 kilowatt-hours from a one hour charge, which is better -- now we're up to two hours for a gallon of gas.
Now we get into "mileage". I've seen electric cars that can go 100 miles on 33.56 kilowatt hours. So for a range of 100 miles, you need to charge for two hours at 240 volts / 70 amps vs. ten hours at 120 volts and 30 amps. For some people, this is probably acceptable. For some people, they probably want the beefy charging infrastructure.
Slashdot Mirror
So if they "launch" in 2012, that means I can order one on Amazon in what, 2014?
When will this technology be available for shark head attachment?
These days we have Homer Simpson and the King of queens, et al.
Excuse me, but Mr. Simpson is a Nuclear Safety Inspector. They don't just give that job out to anyone. And he's been to space and stuff. They don't just let anyone go to space.
You should use a StringBuffer for performance reasons. Just sayin'.
Am I the only one who had to Google 0x5f3759df? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_inverse_square_root
So it's a trademark and a copyright violation? I mean, no offense, but is anyone surprised that Sony freaked?
This reminds me of Office Space. "So you took a name and some art." "Right." "That wasn't yours." "Well, it became mine." "How is that not stealing?"
It's interesting that more people moderated this insightful than moderated it funny.
It's KHAAAAAAAAN!
In a statement by Steve Jobs: "Who the fuck is this guy?! Theoretical physics? How about I put my theoretical foot up his ass! Can you differentiate the pixels of that, motherfucker?"
Please note that I am not advocating any violence, theoretical or otherwise against physicists, theoretical or otherwise.
From http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/army/ref_text/chap08.htm
As with many things, I guess it's a question of hoping someone doesn't do it. And then of course there's:
Can someone please hyperlink every word of this article to Wikipedia for me?
I'll show myself the door. Pout.
I'm in a band and the one thing that really makes it hard to play well, or at least enjoy playing the show, is an unresponsive crowd.
I'm in a crowd, and the one thing that really makes it hard to respond to a band is when they suck.
I'm not the one paid to fix it. I guess we need to work together somehow. But I'm not sure how this is the crowd's fault.
Off the top of my head if you sucked less, I'd respond more. No offense. Same with lectures. Same with product presentations. Same with meetings. Same with anything that you want me to participate in. The leader sets the tone.
Well, here's what I'd advise:
Solve a problem.
My background is that I got an Apple ][+ in 1979. I was 11. Today I'm a professional programmer, and I've worked in lots of different languages. The first things I remember doing "solved a problem":
But the point is that I didn't start with "I want to program", I started with "I'm gonna solve me a problem."
And then I started keying in programs from the BASIC Computer Games and More BASIC Computer Games books. Which is actually how I learned BASIC, because the dialect of BASIC in the books wasn't the same as Applesoft BASIC, so I had to learn how to fix it.
And I just spent a lot of time finding new programs and playing with them.
I wasn't pressured by my dad to program a computer. It was just lying around. I responded to it. If you wanted to do anything cool, you better get to typing some BASIC. So I did.
My daughter is 11 right now. She hangs out on the Neopets website. A large portion of participating in that community is doing stuff in HTML, Javascript and CSS. She makes pages in order to participate in the community, and she understands how the changes in CSS work. Some of her designs are pretty clever. She has taken HTML from other places and modified it to suit her needs. She's showing very programmer-like behaviors.
In my day, I wouldn't consider a BASIC -> Pascal progression. That's if you're going to get a CS degree. Pascal wasn't a practical operating environment on the Apple ][. Professional programming in general was done in 6502 assembler, which I learned when I started making more advanced stuff that I wanted to use personally. In my teens, I started working at a software company part-time after school, and I had to maintain 6502 code, which is where I ultimately thrived.
So anyway, solve a problem that your kid wants to solve, and let the problem dictate the tool. Much as with professional programming. Don't just hunt around looking for tools to learn at the outset. Make the learning evolve naturally from the problem.
I would be happy to have a phone that lived for four years though.
You know, you can just say "powerful" and get the same alliterative effect...
As far as the Dell "yet another little PC" announcement, we've been able to hook PCs up to our TV for years. What matters is making it work well in that environment, which no one has done. No, not even Apple, Microsoft or Boxee.
This article points to a bunch of other efforts from the past. This list is most notably missing BEEP which also included the ability to multiplex multiple streams on top of TCP at the application layer.
I hope they're able to synthesize all of the thinking from these protocols into their work, and they bring this into the IETF and W3C for discussion when it's appropriate...
It makes me wonder if there's dark black fiber. Or is it black dark fiber... Either way, it's fiber that you don't know is there, and doesn't transmit any data.
So if you cut it, does it make a noise?
Is your point that a host that's connected via T-1 that's a mile away is faster than a host that's connected on an OC-3 3,000 miles away? That is, based on knowing the geographic location of a host, you're saying it's somehow an indication of how fast my download will complete? That's the only thing that matters to me -- when will I have my completed bits. My only point here is that the information given in mirror selection is not enough to pick the "fastest" way to get what I want. It lists the geographical location and that's it.
Yes. Yes it is. If such a list can be generated, then why not just generate it in normal operation or list the mirrors based on the output of that tool? Though I do appreciate the tip, and I will try it. Obviously bandwidth and availability varies on a day by day basis. So taking a snapshot at one point in time seems like it will get stale.
It's a legitimate end-user concern. "Which mirror should I select" should not be a user problem. The user wants his bits as soon as possible, which is a technical problem that has allegedly been solved with apt-spy. If that's the case, we should probably integrate that with the mirror selection process, and then you don't have to put up with all the "Nonsense".
Is it just me or is the fun game of "pick your closest mirror" not very fun at all? Just download the damn thing at best possible speed. I don't care where you get it from.
As if I'm in a position to pick the best site where to download something from. Give me a break. Apologies to the power users who can lick their Ethernet cable and tell which site will have the best download performance and availability.
I've been programming for 30 years or so, and I've been feeling ashamed. I've been feeling like I've done something wrong and that I haven't structured my programs right. That if only I was smart enough I would be able to take advantage of these multicore systems.
But I think I'm feeling better about myself. If I write rational multithreaded programs and use scalable patterns like producer / consumer, then I'll be pretty much ready to go.
And it seems like a lot of this isn't really relevant for desktop applications. I mean, there's some amount of keeping the main event thread moving so that your application is responsive, and you do time consuming operations on separate threads. But the only time I've really used a whole lot of threading is in server apps where you have a whole bunch of incoming connections that you're processing concurrently.
I understand that there is a branch of computer science that surrounds parallel computing, and there are some applications that might benefit from this (image processing being the canonical example). But I think it's another tool in the toolbox. Another way to approach a problem like map / reduce or whatever is in vogue. Some problems will benefit from being solved this way. Some won't. Use the right tool.
And I don't understand why we need to beat the drum for more efficient use of multicore. It's cool, we'll figure out what to do with all these cores. And then we'll put that in our toolbox and use it when appropriate.
its sd-card only (pros tend to use CF cards)
I bought an Eye-Fi with a CF adapter that works fine in my digital Rebel.
Shit, I can't remember -- is this a job for Pierce Brosnan or for Tommy Lee Jones?
Indoor ski slope... Refrigerated beach... "I'm crazy Dubai -- I'm gonna build me a ZERO GRAVITY WATERPARK! Woo! I'm crazy!"
This is a perfectly valid sentiment, but given the realities of physics right now, I think it's inevitable.
Let's do some quick math. Essentially what we're talking about is the maximum amount of juice you can pump through a "normal plug". So this is 120 volts at a maximum of, let's say, 30 amps. If you plugged your car in, and it was perfectly efficient recharging the batteries, each hour you'd replenish 120 * 30 = 3600 watt hours of energy, or 3.6 kilowatt hours. Consulting the chart of gasoline gallon equivalents, you see that you need about 33.56 killowatt hours to equal one gallon of gasoline. So it's ten hours to get the equivalent of one gallon of gas in your car using a normal plug.
Now, if you up the voltage to 240 volts and the amperage to 70 amps, you get 16.8 kilowatt-hours from a one hour charge, which is better -- now we're up to two hours for a gallon of gas.
Now we get into "mileage". I've seen electric cars that can go 100 miles on 33.56 kilowatt hours. So for a range of 100 miles, you need to charge for two hours at 240 volts / 70 amps vs. ten hours at 120 volts and 30 amps. For some people, this is probably acceptable. For some people, they probably want the beefy charging infrastructure.